Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22730010›Full record

ArticleJournal of clinical immunology2012

Dosing and therapy utilization: a discussion of updates on PI treatment guidelines.

Mark Ballow

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of clinical immunology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Mark BallowDivision of Allergy and Clinical Immunology, Women & Children's Hospital of Buffalo, SUNY Buffalo, School of Medicine, 219 Bryant Street, Buffalo, NY 14222, USA. ballow@buffalo.edu

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Treatment decisions made in clinical practice, based on current guidelines, often conflict with decisions by third-party payors that restrict the ability of patients with primary immunodeficiency disease (PI) to adhere to appropriate treatment. This is seen by many physicians as potentially placing the health of patients at risk. Key treatment decisions challenged by third-party payors and discussed here include dosing, product safety, and routes of administration. Data on safety issues emphasize that IgG products are not generic drugs and each of the products currently licensed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) must be regarded as an individual therapy, given the products' different manufacturing processes and stabilizing ingredients. The issue of switching patients to a different product needs careful consideration as evidence shows that infusion-related adverse events in many patients are frequently related to this activity. Decisions regarding the route of therapy should also be individualized to the patient, weighing such factors as side effects, adherence with therapy, and lifestyle.

Indexed as

Decision Making, OrganizationalDrug Administration RoutesDrug Dosage CalculationsDrug SubstitutionHumansImmunoglobulins, IntravenousImmunologic Deficiency SyndromesInsurance, Health, ReimbursementMedication AdherencePractice Guidelines as TopicPrecision MedicineImmunoglobulins, Intravenous

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.